1 2025:CGHC:29186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 54 of 2020 Raju Chouhan Son Of Janiram Aged About 26 Years Caste- Chouhan, Resident Of Village- Sirki, Police Station- Dipka, Tahsil - Katghora, District- Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Seema Chouhan Wife Of Raju Chouhan Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Kuchena, Police Station- Kusmunda, District- Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.41/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent/wife. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:06 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent submitted that she married the applicant on 20.04.2017, and after marriage, she went to his house to fulfill matrimonial obligations. However, she soon discovered that the applicant had a love affair with Kajal, who claimed to be pregnant with his child. When the respondent tried to know the truth, the applicant would quarrel with her. On 31.12.2017, he severely beat her, leading to her hospitalization. During her treatment, the applicant showed no concern for her well-being. The respondent reported the incident to the police, who advised the applicant to take care of her. Despite having agricultural land and a sufficient income, the applicant refused to maintain her, leading her to file a maintenance claim. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has erred in proceeding ex-parte against the applicant, whereas the applicant has not received any notice in proceedings. Further, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife has left her matrimonial house without any reasonable cause and she did not turn up, despite several efforts made by the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is a healthy lady and she has source of income to survive herself. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is doing private job on temporary basis and hardly maintaining himself and his old parents. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent was doubting upon the applicant that he has love relation with one Kajal and on the basis of 3 that apprehension, she left the matrimonial house, without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of respondent, which is excessive looking to income of the applicant. Further, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband is an adult married person, so he definitely does some work to earn his livelihood, so it can be presumed against the applicant that he earns 07 to 08 thousand rupees per month and it is also a well-established principle of law that if a person is physically and mentally healthy, then he is capable of maintaining his married wife and children. In the present case also, the applicant is physically and mentally healthy person, so he is capable of maintaining the respondent who is the married wife of the applicant, since the respondent is living separately from the applicant for sufficient reason and the applicant is not giving her maintenance amount. Therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance amount from the applicant, so the application of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is partially accepted. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 4 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti